C-Pier wins After-the-Fact VMRC approval–hammered for violations

The C-Pier at the Oyster Farm Marina received an after-the-fact approval for work that affects wetlands in and around the location of King’s Creek. The application was submitted to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission by Peacock Holdings, LLC. Local developer and Peacock Holdings manager Bill Parr signed and submitted the application to Habitat Management Chief Tony Watkinson. The work involved screened-in porches, as well as maintaining the restaurant works.

The application was approved by the Virginia Marine Resource Commission Tuesday in a vote of 6-1.

While the application was approved, there was a civil charge of $3000 for a “major degree of noncompliance.” The normal fee of $300 was tripled, and a triple royalty of $3600 was assessed. The fees were the result of “the encroachment of the two covered screened porches over 1,200 square feet of state-owned subaqueous land at a rate of $3 per square foot.”

Ha !! I think my predecessors are missing the point. The fine is a good idea, and not too ridiculous. It doesn’t hurt the business. BUT the building is still in non-compliance. paying the fine doesn’t fix that. Make them tear it down and fix it. Make them go into compliance. OTHERWISE a precedent is set and ANYONE can build as they please, do what they want, and just pay a fine w/o fixing the problem. Some people have recently been caught cutting down trees on the waterfront, right ? They were fined AND had to replant trees. in other words, THEY HAD TO FIX IT !! Duh !! Is anybody home ??

I must be missing the point. All they did was screen in an existing patio on an existing pier. How in the world that is going to impact the health of the state’s subaqueous property in a way that is any more substantial than the already approved pier and existing structures is beyond me. But hey, let’s make it as hard as possible to do business in this county. I’m sure the poster’s above would be happy to kick in the extra dollars to fund the higher teacher salaries and the new high school once we’ve run off everybody that wants to invest here in a business that might provide some tax revenue.

They didn’t follow the procedure. They paid the fine. Get over it. Maybe go have a beer at C-Pier. They are getting ready to open for the season, and I wish them great success.

Mr Jack Trump is right about the property owner who cut down the waterfront trees. He paid a fine, faced jail time and had to replant the trees. But it was Northampton County that took him to court and won. The county takes wetlands violations seriously. VMRC is a state agency. They don’t seem to care much what happens over here.

Are we in agreement that clear cutting a third of an acre with no permit and no silt fences or other sedimentary runoff controls is not in the same ballpark, or even the same league really as adding a screened in patio to an existing, permitted structure on an existing, permitted pier? Because if we can’t agree on that point, then I’m not sure there is much else to talk about. The idea that the punishment should fit the crime is well established in Western law and rightly so.

Well, in response to Chris Willis, I guess I’ll start by saying, I NEVER SAID the 2 crimes were the same. I certainly never suggested the fines should be the same. What I’m saying is that the fine fixes nothing. Chris, IF you are condoning leaving the new construction in place, then let me ask you, what is there to keep anyone else from doing the same thing ? This would appear to establish a precedent that we can ignore rules and regulations as to what we are allowed to build, and where. I’ve visited my college buddies all around the country and building permits have many times been a topic of conversation. I cannot ever remember discussing construction anywhere, that was not permitted, to be allowed to stay in place, after it was put up and found to be illegal. The problem construction always had to be righted. All I’m saying is obey the law please, or expect to fix it. I think that’s fair.

The key words are “if it’s found to be illegal.” I am aware of several projects in the Norfolk/Va Beach area that were completed with incomplete permits or permits not issued at all. In some cases, they did have to tear down the completed work, but in others, it was allowed to stay and a fine was levied, as in this case. I am not a lawyer, but I think it depends on whether or not the project would have been approved had it gone through the correct process to begin with, and whether or not the owners completed all the required paperwork retroactively for the “after the fact” approval. Meaning, they did everything they would have had to do if they had done it correctly, AND the construction would have been approved if they had done it correctly, AND they paid a fine.

I’m sure it just comes down to a business calculation in many cases. It can take several months to go through the process correctly, so people look at it and say, “is it likely that this will be approved – if yes – then how much money do I think I can make if I go ahead and install the patio screens now and start serving customers, do all the paperwork retroactively and pay a fine, vice how much money do I lose sitting around through a whole business season waiting for the approvals.” It’s a gamble, because they may come back and make you tear everything out, but in this case, it really was just adding a screened porch to an existing, approved structure, so very low risk. The 1200 sq ft of subaqueous land they are talking about was already covered by a previously permitted and approved dock, so no new land was covered.

I don’t think this case sets a precedent, so much as follows the existing one. If we are really interested in fixing the issue, we should look at what’s wrong with the existing process that makes people willing to risk non-compliance and fix it. I would hope that would mean making it simpler and faster to get approvals, not adding some new draconian measures to further discourage investment.